The wording of BC0 59-1 and 59-6 goes beyond that of chapter 23 of the Westminster Confession of Faith, and thus, if it were made constitutional, it would place new, harmful bounds on the consciences of Christians dealing with abuses of the government.
In light of the efforts in the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) to make Book of Church Order (BCO) 59 constitutional, it seems prudent to explore the issue of marriage and the magistrate more broadly than the current focus on the issue of “same-sex marriage.” In my previous article, I began this effort by briefly reviewing several ways that governments, from distant history to current day, have misunderstood marriage and applied restrictions to it that go beyond Scripture:
- Prohibitions of marriages between high-class women and low-class men in 3rd-century Rome
- Complex, arbitrary approval processes for Protestant weddings in 20th-century Spain
- Prohibitions on interracial marriage until the mid-20th century in the United States
- Tight restrictions on marriage of non-citizens in today’s Dominican Republic
In this article, I hope to show that BCO 59 introduces restrictions on how Christians may interact with the magistrate’s unbiblical legislation on marriage. In particular, I contend that the wording of BC0 59-1 and 59-6 goes beyond that of chapter 23 of the Westminster Confession of Faith, and thus, if it were made constitutional, that it would place new, harmful bounds on the consciences of Christians dealing with abuses of the government.
The Book of Church Order and the Westminster Confession of Faith
Concerns in the PCA about the wording of BCO 59-1 and 59-6 with respect to the magistrate’s power and the Christian’s obligation to obey extend at least as far back as 2009. Until that time, 59-1 made no allowance for civil disobedience in response to unbiblical legislation, and 59-6 simply required ministers to obey both God’s and the community’s laws, without addressing how to handle conflict between them.
In an apparent attempt to deal with this deficiency, the 37th PCA General Assembly added language to these two sections so that they would only require obedience when doing so would not “transgress the laws of God.” The sections now read:
59-1. Marriage is a divine institution though not a sacrament, nor peculiar to the Church of Christ. It is proper that every commonwealth, for the good of society, make laws to regulate marriage, which all citizens are bound to obey insofar as they do not transgress the laws of God (Acts 5:29).
59-6. Marriage is of a public nature. The welfare of civil society, the happiness of families, and the credit of Christianity, are deeply interested in it. Therefore, the purpose of marriage should be sufficiently published a proper time previously to the solemnization to it. It is enjoined on all ministers to be careful that, in this matter, they obey the laws of the community to the extent that those laws do not transgress the laws of God as interpreted by the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church in America; and that they may not destroy the peace and comfort of families, ministers should be assured that, with respect to the parties applying to them, no just objections lie against their marriage.
The language introduced by the 37th PCA General Assembly, while perhaps meant to be consistent with the Westminster Confession of Faith, does not correspond with the language of WCF 23, particularly its requirement to obey the “lawful commands” (§4) of the magistrate. The section reads, in part:
It is the duty of people to pray for magistrates, to honor their persons, to pay them tribute or other dues, to obey their lawful commands, and to be subject to their authority, for conscience’ sake.
The amended language of BCO 59 is clearly an improvement over the original text, but in the paragraphs that follow I intend to demonstrate that it is both unclear and inconsistent with the WCF.
Shortcomings of BCO 59
There are at least three areas of concern in BCO 59:
- The word “transgress” of the BCO is narrower than “lawful” of the WCF, implying a stricter standard for permissible civil disobedience.
- The referent of the word “they” in the last clause of BCO 59-1 is unclear.
- The clause “as interpreted by the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church in America” in BCO 59-6 may be fairly understood as restrictive, further limiting civil disobedience.
As mentioned above, the language used by BCO 59 and WCF 23 to limit the Christian’s obedience to the magistrate is not identical. The BCO uses “transgress the laws of God” as its negative exception, while the WCF uses the word “lawful” as its positive requirement. In most situations, these formulations would be equivalent, but the difference leaves the door open for confusion.
“Transgress” vs. “lawful”
First, the word “transgress,” in the language of the Westminster Standards, can be understood as one type of sin – in particular, Westminster Shorter Catechism 14 contrasts transgression with want of conformity. On this understanding, the BCO allows civil disobedience only when the magistrate’s legislation transgresses the laws of God, but not when it merely does not conform to it. Thus in order to engage in civil disobedience against an extraneous restriction on marriage, one must not only prove that the law is out of conformity with God’s law, but in fact transgresses it. So, for example, one who intends to disobey the magistrate’s extra-biblical prohibition on the marriage of two people of the wrong race, class, religion, or citizenship must first prove that that prohibition in itself transgresses a law of God.
On the other hand, the phrase “lawful commands” in the Westminster Confession is broader, and places fewer restrictions on civil disobedience. It uses language that is fairly understood to include both want of conformity and transgression of God’s law, and it immediately follows a section (23-3) in which the magistrate is prohibited from interfering “in matters of faith” or in the “due exercise” of the “regular government and discipline” of the church. To the extent, then, that marriage is a “matter of faith” or an aspect of the “regular government and discipline” of the church, the magistrate’s interference in it is unlawful and may be disobeyed. Charles Hodge rightly states:
The legitimate power of the state in all these matters is limited by the revealed will of God. It can make nothing an impediment to marriage which the Scriptures do not declare to be a bar to that union.[1]
Ambiguous “they” in 59-1
Second, BCO 59-1 uses the word “they” ambiguously in the phrase “[commonwealths] make laws to regulate marriage, which all citizens are bound to obey insofar as they do not transgress the laws of God.” Does “they” refer to the citizens, or to the laws? If the former, then this further limits civil disobedience – it would require citizens to obey unjust laws so long as in so doing they” do not themselves transgress the laws of God. The reference to Acts 5:29 could be seen to support this interpretation, since the apostles’ focus on their own obedience when they proclaim, “we must obey God rather than men.”
Applying this logic to the case of Acts 5, we might ask if it would have been a transgression of the laws of God for the apostles to go elsewhere to preach the gospel in response to the “magistrate’s” prohibition. If not, then by this reading of the BCO, their civil disobedience would not be justified. In order to disobey, they would have had to prove that preaching elsewhere was a transgression of the laws of God – a more difficult case to make in light of other Christians going elsewhere to preach the Gospel.[2]
“As interpreted by the Constitution of the PCA”
Thankfully, the parallel language of 59-6 avoids the ambiguity of 59-1, in that it specifies “laws” when it requires that ministers “obey the laws of the community to the extent that those laws do not transgress the laws of God.” But it introduces a new problem as it continues “as interpreted by the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church in America.”
This phrase, clearly restrictive, is probably meant to ensure that the appropriate framework for evaluating whether the magistrate’s legislation violates the law of God is the Constitution of the PCA. So far so good, but what about cases in which the Constitution of the PCA is silent? The Constitution of the PCA makes no statement regarding interracial marriage, for example. In such a case, it becomes even more difficult to demonstrate that a prohibition of interracial marriage is a “transgression” of the “law of God as interpreted by the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church in America,” particularly, again, in light of the Constitution’s distinction between transgression and want of conformity.
What’s next?
As we consider whether to make BCO 59 part of the PCA’s constitution, I fear we are focused too heavily on one section– 59-3, “Marriage is to be between one man and one woman” – and not considering the consequences of adopting other sections of the chapter. Several of this year’s overtures have made adjustments to other portions of the chapter, but none have dealt with the concerns raised here – that 59-1 and 59-6 go beyond the Standards in the area of the civil magistrate’s authority and thus place additional restrictions on civil disobedience by churches and ministers.
It’s tempting to look at our local, state, and federal governments and assume that any need for civil disobedience is unlikely, and that thus 59-1 and 59-6 aren’t problematic. But this view is too narrow – the PCA is an international denomination, and its constitution informs many churches around the world. We know very little about the current and future legislation of the myriad governments affecting these jurisdictions, and yet by adopting BCO 59 in its current form we would further bind churches and elders to follow them.
One solution to this difficulty would be to reject the overtures to make BCO 59 part of the PCA’s constitution. Thankfully, this is a viable option because the key language of 59-3: “Marriage is to be between one man and one woman,” is already found in the Constitution of the PCA (WCF 24-1), which our elders are bound to uphold.[3]
Alternatively, we could take on the task of making additional amendments to BCO 59. The points raised above could be addressed by rewriting the sections to more carefully require Christian obedience to “lawful commands,” as opposed to “laws [that] do not transgress the laws of God.” However, the example of the 37th General Assembly reminds us of the challenge of modifying the BCO in a way that accounts for a variety of circumstances and beliefs without inadvertently binding our elders and churches in new ways.
A more straight-forward solution might be to give only 59-3 constitutional authority, though this would break with the precedents of making the entire chapters of BCO 56, 57, and 58 constitutional.
Regardless, we must remember that good constitutions can withstand the tests of time and place. We should evaluate modifications to it not only in light of our own circumstances, but also against the lessons of history and the experiences of others. In our attempt to make our constitution more suitable for the United States and Canada in 2018, we must not neglect its suitability for the government of Christ’s church more broadly.
Nathaniel Sheetz is a member of the Presbyterian Church in America and serves as a ruling elder at Gospel Fellowship PCA in Valencia, Penn.
[1] Systematic Theology, Part III, Chapter XIX, §11, “Marriage as a Civil Institution.”
[2] In fact, the apostles did have a direct command from God to preach in that particular location (v. 20). But if that was the only basis for their civil disobedience, it is stricter standard than that found in the Westminster Confession.
A possible marriage-related example: If the government requires that all ministers officiate same-sex wedding ceremonies, in order to disobey, the minister would have to be able to prove that the mere act of officiating the ceremony would be a transgression of the laws of God. This is a higher standard than proving that the government’s requirement itself does not conform to God’s law, particularly in light of WCF 23-3.
[3] Some have suggested that this confession, and thus this language, is also used by denominations that permit “same-sex marriage.” But note the difference in how the confession is regarded: the PC(USA) requires only an affirmation that the elder will “be instructed and led” by the confession (BO 2017 W-4.0404c), whereas the PCA requires that the elder “sincerely receive and adopt” the confession (BCO 24-6).